POLSCI 2US3

preconditions to the creation of the US Constitution

In mid 1700s, the British taxed Americans while Americans did not have any say or representation in Westminster

- "no taxation without representation"

- taxing tea, sugar, stamps etc. made Americans angry and want independence

First Continental Congress in Philadelphia

1774: purpose was to emphasize the desire for America to be a free, autonomous and independent political state

- also declared economic war on Britain

American Revolution

Began in 1775

- due to heightened tensions between GB and US, due to taxation, military occupation, Boston Tea Party

Second Continental Congress in Phildadelphia

1776: Drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation

Declaration of Independence

1776: drafted by Thomas Jefferson

- was a justification/rationale for Americas separation from Britain + brought together the 13 colonies

- inspired by Locke (truths of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)

- listed grievances enacted by GB against UD: "LONG TRAIN OF ABUSES"

why did Jefferson change protection of property to the pursuit of happiness in the DI?

to be more unifying and less exclusionary to people without property in order to pass the bill!

what are examples of the grievances listed in the DI

imposing taxes on tea, sugar and stamps without consent, cutting off trade, denying trials by jury, quartering troops in homes

what are examples of rights listed in the DI

right to be free and independent states, absolved allegiance from GB, power to levy war, contact allies, establish commerce etc.

- right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

- equality of all men

Articles of Confederation Overview

1776: the first constitution of the US

- provided support for the justification of American Independence

- proposed a plan for how liberties and freedoms will be protected ad exercised in the US

- CONFEDERACY (union. of 13 colonies/association of states) -league of friendship: not very powerful because drafters wanted to avoid encroachment on rights + freedoms

AoC Contents

- unicameral legislature, one house/chamber where each state has one vote regardless of size

- to amend/change the constitution you need unanimous consent

- no executive branch so no real president (done to prevent encroachment of rights)

- weak judiciary branch

AoC Issues

limited power and resources for the government, difficulty in regulating domestic and international trade/commerce due to different currencies between colonies, difficulty raising an army (protecting its people), inability to enter foreign treaties

1786

some states met at Annapolis convention to propose a meeting to revise the AoC

Third Constitutional Congress in Philadelphia

1787: Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison -difficult to amend cause unanimous votes

- Hamilton and other scholars convinced states to agree on a 9/13 system instead

- purpose of convention was to abolish the Articles of Confederation

- resulted in 3 separate plans for future constitutions

Plan 1 from 3rd CC

Virginia Plan: by James Madison

- bicameral chambers

- lower house = house of representatives

upper house = senate

- house members would be decided by population (good for large states not small ones) -senate would have 2 senators per state and would be chosen by the house of representatives

- strong + independent executive and judiciary branches... was endorsed by larger states because they had greater representation, and was hated by smaller states because they did not have as much representation

Plan 2 from 3rd CC

New Jersey Plan: by William Patterson

- unicameral chamber (promote smaller states due to 1 vote per state)

- judicial and executive branches have limited power to prevent encroachment of rights. - basically same as original plan, done because it benefits the smaller states (in response to V plan)

Plan 3 from 3rd CC

Connecticut Compromise: Sherman and Ellsworth

- bicameral chambers

lower house = amount of representatives is based on population and locally elected to concede larger states*

upper house = 2 seats per state decided by state legislature to concede smaller states

- created an electoral college where the president is indirectly voted for

- strong judiciary and executive branch

What is the Bill of Rights

the first 10 amendments to the US constitution in 1791 by JAMES MADISON

- addresses problems of if branches of government are not in equilibrium

- focuses on separate but coequal branches of government and checks and balances

- also outlines rights and freedoms of Americans in relation to their government (free speech, press, religion)

CONCESSION TO ANTI FEDERALISTS

- done after the government became much. more centralized, as this was not anticipated

Federalist Papers

1787 after the 3rd CC, written in New York by Hamilton, Madison and Jay to convince people of the great compromise so it can pass 9/13

- convince people that a large and extended government best preserves their rights and liberties (greatest political efficacy)

Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists (political efficacy + representation)

F: prioritize strong national decision making authority through a large and extended government

- checks and balances and other systems best preserve the rights and freedoms of Americans

- representatives should be on a long leash to best figure out the interests of citizens and the nation

AF: rights of people are best protected by small and accessible unions

- encourages civic-minded and active citizens that assist in decision making

- keep representatives on a short leash, all decisions and values of reps should mirror voters

factions

group actuated by common interests or passions

- if branches of government do not fulfill their role the government will fall into disequilibrium (rise of factions)

FP 10, Madison: you cannot remove the causes of factions so you must control the effects (through checks and balances)

purpose of congress

checks and balances for factions!

- separate but coequal branches of government that exercise control over each other so no branch has more political power than another

- this is a federalist ideal of strong centralized government

- if adhere to their powers then checks and balances are in equilibrium and you can have functioning political system

Congress

legislative branch of government

- bicameral (senate and HoR)

- can impeach president and justices, override presidential veto, can block or veto president, confirms presidential, cabinet and judicial appointments, approves and allots budget, creates number and sizes of courts (not SC)

what articles of constitution give power to legislative, executive and judicial branch

1,2,3

Judiciary Branch C and B

Checks: judicial review

Balances: congress can impeach and confirms supreme court appointments

- can overrule judicial decisions with constitutional amendment

- congress controls the size and amount of courts

Executive Branch C and B*

appoints justices, can recommend judicial appointments, can veto congressional decisions

- can have veto overrided and can be impeached

House of Representatives

435 members serving 2 year terms

- 25+ and citizen for 7+ years

- win elections in local districts, 700,000 per congressional district (larger states have more representatives)

- peoples house: represent constituents and are large

- policy specialists

- DISCIPLINED committee structure

- POWERFUL and PARTISAN leadership

UNEVEN power distribution

- less prestigious and media coverage than Senate

- can impeach and impose taxes

Senate

100 members (2 per state) serving 6 year terms

- 30+ and citizen for 9+ years

- SOBER SECOND THOUGHT of HoR

- more difficult to secure and more prestigious

- EVEN power distribution

- loosely controlled

- policy generalists

- WEAKER and LESS PARTISAN leadership

- more media and prestige

- focus on foreign policy and defence

impeachment process

congress can impeach president for egregious behaviour

start: investigation launched by HoR due to extreme/crazy presidential behavior

-if articles of impeachment are confirmed by 2/3 of each chamber then trial in senate

- Chief of Justice oversees trial

*no pres has ever been removed from office

how does congress override veto

congress can veto presidential order

- IF presidential veto, they can override veto if 2/3 support from both chambers

Pocket Veto

if president fails to pass a bill or veto it in 10 business days of it being given to him it AUTOMATICALLY becomes law

- if bill is not acted on by President and Congress is closed less then 10 business days after the bill dies

Line Item Veto

governors have this power

- can strike out clauses they do not like and keep clauses they do like

- In 90s Gingrich gave Clinton this power but it was immediately struck down by the Supreme Court

legislative process (numbered)

1. idea of bill (congress, president, interest group)

2. bill is introduced by congress (selected from hopper if HoR)

3. speaker of the house refers bill to committee

4. subcommittee is where bill goes if need more info

-bill is examined by experts

5. subcommittee reports findings to committee

6. committee approves, rejects or stalls bill

7. bill must be approved with simple majority in it's house

7. opposite house gets the bill and has a similar process

-members change the bill and discuss it in depth

- requires a simple majority to be passed

8. if passed by other house, it is sent to conference committee

9. if compromise on bill is reached in cc, both chambers must approve the new bill with a simple majority

10. president can sign, veto, or do nothing to the bill

in what chamber does filibustering happen and how is it fixed?

filibuster happens during discussion of bills in senate, can be stopped if 2/3 majority for bill

legislative process (summary)

Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill.

The bill is then assigned to a committee for study.

If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended.

If the bill passes by simple majority, the bill moves to the Senate.

In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on.

Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill.

Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval.

Government Publishing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling.

The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.

pork barreling

legislation injected with provisions that advances interest of their constituents

- can be random unrelated clauses in the bill that just benefit a party, constituent or member

- why it is important for governors to have line item veto, so they can get rid of pork!

implementing legislation

another provision congress has to follow in international law

- congress has to make sure that the treaty does not interfere with state legislation

can the president declare war?

no! but he can deploy troops, which is similar because not many wars have been declared in America

- it is an ongoing debate whether executive or congress plays more role on war and defence

President as the Chief and Commander

serves as the ultimate civilian authority over the military as the Commander-in-Chief

- President is commander of military and navy!

- part of the debate of executive and congressional control over declaring war

pardon power

president has the ability to pardon any person of any type of crime

- done near the end of term so they can leave in good favour

- groups can lobby for people for president to pardon

negotiating powers of president

with approval of senate, president can negotiate treaties (fast track authority)

FTA: Impermanent power granted by Congress to the president to negotiate international trade agreements

- Protects a president's ability to negotiate trade agreements with confidence that Congress will not alter the records

Clinton and NAFTA example

what is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?

a treaty requires senate approval while an executive agreement DOES NOT

- presidents rely much more on EAs than on treaties because congress cannot encroach as much

EA used to be used for low political importance agreements, though it is now used for much higher agreements too

Bush and ABM vs. Canada and Golden Shield

Bush withdrew from anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia, because signatories could withdraw with 6 months notice

Now, an even more strategic nuclear treaty, the golden dome, is being navigated by Trump and Carney

executive power of president

can intervene in ways to protect interest of US

- presidential prerogative: can protect national interest without congressional consent (presidential pardons, executive orders, commander in chief during times of war)

- presidential privilege: can withhold information that would jeopardize national security if leaked

difference between privilege and prerogative

protect national interest and withhold information that would jeopardize national security

electoral college votes

each state is assigned as many votes as congressional districts (amount of representatives) and two senate votes

electoral college election system

winner takes all where winner needs a simple majority (270/538)

- if winner of plurality, you win all votes in a state

- if trump wins majority in texas, he gets all 38 votes

slate of legislators

in each state, a democratic and republican slate of legislators is ran (55 for CA, 38 for TS) - elected in statewide elections

- electors are pledged but NOT BOUND BY LAW to vote for the candidate that won the plurality of votes

after election, WINNING slate of electors meets in state capital and they are asked individually who they are voting for

around christmas after election formal counting of votes is when they vote

why is the presidential election state based?

because slate of electors cast their vote within their states

how does voting in Maine and Nebraska work?

based on congressional districts, two senate votes are determined state wide

superelectors

people who do not have to go through campaign process of electors

- they are seated automatically

- Hillary Clinton

January 6

votes are counted in the capital and overseen by the VP

- largely ceremonial

- insurrection in 2021

faithless electors

members of the Electoral College who do not vote for whom they are pledged to

- it has never swung an election, does not happen often in general

electoral college background

Electoral College was one of 7/8 options available to framers of constitution in 1787

- electoral college was a concession between large and small states (senate and HoR different election types)

- amount of votes in college changes overtime with population

- wanted to make sure president was chosen based on qualifications rather than appeal to the mob

war powers act

instituted to ensure that the collective judgement of executive and legislative branch would be brought to bear on any decisions involving troop deployment

- way for congress to renew support in its people, so there would not be another vietnam war

- way to reign in president

Parts:

Within 24 hours of troops being deployed congress must be consulted

Unless congress grants approval or extension, President is required to carry out mission in 60 days, 30 days is also added on because it is hard to leave certain places

why do presidents not bring the war powers act to congress?

Executive and Congress get what they want out of bill

- C can be ignorant about deployment

- Presidents know it lacks authority and capabilities to reign them in

Both don't want to risk a decision that would risk it

Two Presidencies Thesis

the thesis by Wildavsky that there are two distinct presidencies, one for foreign and one for domestic policy, and that presidents are more successful in foreign than domestic policy

- congress weighs in on domestic policy because they have vested interest to keep constituents happy

- c distanced for foreign policy, not as much interest, the rally the flag effect

different types of congressional committees

standing, select, joint, conference

standing committee

A permanent committee established in a legislature, usually focusing on a policy area (energy, agriculture, defense)

select committee

A temporary legislative committee established for a limited time period and for a special purpose (9/11, Jan 6th)

joint committee

A committee composed of members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate; such committees oversee the Library of Congress and conduct investigations. - conference committees are a type of joint committee

conference committee

Special joint committee created to reconcile differences in bills passed by the House and Senate

speaker of the house

the leader of the majority party who serves as the presiding officer of the House of Representatives

- Presidential succession act of 1947 made the speaker second in line to president after VP!

- Key negotiator between the House and President and with the Senate

- FUNDAMENTAL for passing legislation and deciding where funds go

ROLE and POWER of the speaker grew significantly after the civil war and the two party partisanship embedded in government

Madbury v. Madison 1803

Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Written in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall,

- done after Marbury did not receive his commission for judicial appointment after it was left on secretary desk and the Jefferson and Madison came into power

- Marshall ruled that the Marbury has the right to commission, there is a remedy to his issue (Judiciary Act of 1789), he has the right to writ, but he did not go to the right court!

was denied his judicial commission

This ruling breathed life into the document of judicial review, first time this ever occurred in US and set precedent for judicial review

background on the creation of the judicial branch of government

was a part of larger conflict between federalists and anti-federalists on whether to have a strong and centralized government, or a smaller government emphasizing citizen civic engagement

- also reflected tensions between individual rights, the central government, and state rights

Federalist Paper 78

The Judiciary is least dangerous branch, because the nature of its functions makes it unlikely to threaten the political rights of the Constitution. The founders generally viewed the Courts as legal, not political.

- congress has power of the purse and executive has power of the sword, judicial has neither and cannot enforce anything so it is the least to worry about

Done to convince New York for a strong and independent judicial branch, all judiciary does is power of law and moral suasion

PROBLEM: now the court is considered most dangerous in many ways, as chief justices like Chief Marshall have expanded the power of the judiciary significantly

why is it important that the judicial branch is strong and indpendent?

strong and independent is a check and balance

- strong means that they can overrule other laws made by congress and deem some laws unconstitutional

- independent makes them part of equilibrium and allows other branches to assert checks over it

Marshall ruling in Marbury v. Madison

Marbury had the right writ but went to the wrong place!

- it was unconstitutional because the Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction over the issue

- it was unconstitutional for the supreme court to issue the writ, so the issue was null and void

LANDMARK because it provided judiciary branch with most important power it has of judicial review - to strike down acts of Congress and E ecutive when deemed unconstitutional

- if Marbury started his case at a lower court he would've been golden

- this was also done by Marbury to expand the power of the courts because now they had power over E and C

how are judicial appointments confirmed?

The Senate confirms them with a simple majority for the approval

background information in Marbury v. Madison case

Jefferson and Burr were both candidates on the same ballot, so Jefferson split the votes for democratic candidate, and Addams was Republican

- when there is no winner for Presidential candidates (Burr and Jefferson received same amounts of votes, the House of Representatives decides with a simple majority)

- was the precedent for the 12th amendment that ruled that P and VP candidates must be marked on ballots

McCulloch v. Maryland 1819

illustrates the same pattern of the court wanting to extend its power and the central government of the US

- overseen by Chief Justice Marshall

the constitutional status of the Baltimore branch of the federal bank

- Maryland did not want the bank because it expanded the powers and reach of the US government, so they tried to tax the bank

- McCulloch worked at the bank and sued the state of Maryland

BANK and INSTITUTION is not mentioned in the constitution, so does congress have a right to incorporate them in states?

YES!

- instance of judicial activism, and of consolidating federalism and centralized powers

- supremacy of the constitution over the rights of people in states...

doctrines that emerged from the McCulloch and Maryland case

doctrine of national supremacy - hen fundamental conflict between state laws and federal laws, federal laws should prevail (ruling confirmed Anti-Federalists concerns of expanding central government)

doctrine of implied powers - if federal government is responsible for building of nation is it that much of a stretch that institutions are also required to facilitate that building? (greater goal of constitution is ro build a strong country...)

an entity, such as a government or international organization, has powers that are not explicitly stated in its founding documents but are necessary to carry out its explicitly granted responsibilities.

pattern of STRENGTHENING powers of federal courts

Dred Scott v. Stanford 1857

Supreme Court decision that extended federal protection to slavery by ruling that Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in any territory. Also declared that slaves, as property, were not citizens of the United States.

- after Scott wanted to apply for citizenship for himself and his family and was formerly a slave - was a blow to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in the eyes of the abolitionists

Very controversial decision that upset many individuals

- resulted in Lincolns speech: a divided house cannot stand

- conveys that some judicial decisions divide and damage the US

Judicial Accountability

the judiciary should be accountable to the other branches of government and/or the public

- If justices are granted more power and are immune from scrutiny what does this give rise to!?

- State judges are elected while federal judges are not!?

- this is a debate on whether the judiciary has too much power and is not held accountable/is removed from public

- Judges have freedom to make the decisions they feel comfortable making without fear of the repercussions for what they have done - this may create politicization

court packing

Attempt by Roosevelt to appoint one new Supreme Court justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70 who had been there for at least 10 years. Wanted to prevent justices from dismantling the new deal.

- constitutionally it is allowed but the political stakes and risks and fall outs are high (Biden was advised to do this because it would shape his legacy and be a decision with lots of ramifications)

election of supreme court judges

There has to be a vacancy, where someone retires or passes away, or impeachment

- sometimes people are lobbied to step down at specific times

If vacancy, interest groups, other organizations dig into background of people being nominated

Judges are ultimately appointed by President and confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate

Judicial Activism

Philosophy proposing that judges should interpret the Constitution to reflect current conditions and values and concerns of the public

- this is prescribed to by Democratic Judges

Judicial Originalism

Principle of interpretation that tries to find out the original meaning or intent and not impose new interpretations foreign to the original intention of the authors

- this is prescribed to by Republican Judges

what work does the supreme court do?

they work on 100 cases per year

Reference writ of certiorari: request for lower courts to give all documents relevant to arriving at an earlier ruling that they can review

Rule of Four: four of the SC judges must agree to hear a case

Amicus briefs: friends of the court, people who are well established in a field, they present their opinion on a particular area they are familiar with

Oral arguments: when people present in front of courts, they are questioned about their presentation and the justices want to explore different options they might have

clerkship of Supreme Court

legal clerks can have profound impacts on the ruling and influence of supreme court judges and decisions

federalist paper 10

A republican form of government, whereby the people do NOT vote directly, but are represented by fellow citizens, can exist in either a large or small country; but is BEST in a large country, because the existence of many factions (interest groups), as is always the case in a large country, prevents any one group from gaining power. A republican government, therefore, is a protection against the concentration of power.

Requirements of Presidential Candidate

The president must be 35+ years old and be a natural born citizen of the US who has lived in the US for over 14 years.

what is vague about the War Powers Act?

The President must consult with congress before deploying troops (consult is what is vague)

- leaves lots of loopholes for P and Congress

what was the writ that Marbury had in Marbury v. Madison (1803)?

writ a mandamus

- order from superior court that orders a lower court to do a duty they previously failed to do

- in M v. M, it was the failure of courts to provide Marbury with his appointment

fast facts of Marbury V. Madison (1803)

had RIGHT to the commission

had REMEDY for the issue

had WRIT a mandamus for the remedy

had WRONG COURT

national security doctrine and implied power doctrine

national security = if federal and state laws clash, then federal laws supersede state

implied power = government has powers not specifically listed in constitution that are still in spirit of the constitution (building banks advances national interest so it is an implied power)

rule of four

FOUR judges must agree to review a lower court decision for the supreme court to do so

writ of certiorari

An order by a higher court directing a lower court to send up a case for review

- in order for a case to be reviewed, it has to be agreed upon by 4/9 judges

amicus curiae

provide non legal documents that provide extra information and insight on a case that is being reviewed

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) details

in attempt to overturn the separate cars act that enforced separate but equal streetcars for white and blacks to ride in

- Plessy was arrested due to conspiring by the citizens committee to plant homer and an investigator on the train car to instruct an employee to ask Plessy to go to the blacks car

- Plessy refused and was then arrested

- went to the supreme court and said that the separate but equal act violated the 14th amendment requiring equal protection under the law

- Ferguson Supreme Court said that rights in the 14th amendment did not extend to social and political rights, so it did not interfere with the constitutution

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) significance

breathed more life into the separate but coequal doctrine and Jim Crow Segregation Laws

- southern officials felt more empowered to enforce segregation laws after this ruling

- took over 60 years to overturn

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) significance

overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and the separate but equal doctrine

even after overturning there was lots of push back and unhappiness and white flight - specifically from affluent white people in US

lots of social and other barriers that prevented black children from attending white schools

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) details

Linda Brown wanted to go to the whites only school that was down the street from her but she could not because of separate but coequal doctrine

- Linda became the figurehead for a class action lawsuit against the separate but equal doctrine

- the conclusion they reached in wanting to abolish S but E was that it was really unequal, and it had adverse psychological affects on the black children that attended the black schools

- ultimately led to Warring overturning the separate but coequal doctrine

examples of Separate but Equal Doctrine

Jackie Robinson not being able to eat or sleep with his team

- in Canada we had Japanese Internment, racial segregation, and Residential schools as well so important to reflect on our own past as well not just America

Regents of California v. Bakke (1978) details

Bakke did not get into UC Davis Medical School, and he claimed it was because of reserved seats for racial minorities

- he say that some minority people had lower GPAs than him but were let in (they got +20 points in admissions)

- Bakke argued that affirmative action undermined the 14th amendment's assurance of due process

- he ended up winning his case in the supreme court - importance of education in class mobility and inequality in education institutions in US

Regents of California v. Bakke (1978) significance

-led to the removal of affirmative action admission programs

- ruling that background is important but you cannot do so for an entire group of people

- notion created that Affirmative action needs to be for pursuing general public interest, how is it being served if people from one demographic are privileged over others

- highlights the issue of DEI: how do you have a fair and equitable system when argument is that DEI privileges some individuals over others

Arguments for Affirmative Action

there is a systemic problem so you need to give certain people a leg up because if not the gap will never be closed (economic, social and educational barriers disadvantage certain people)

admissions cater to rich individuals that pay to have their children admitted

you need to have DEI policies to ensure a level playing field (does not even lead to equal outcomes)

Arguments against Affirmative Action

does not address the root causes of inequality such as poverty and lack of access to education

violates the principle of equality and 14th amendment (not ruled that way in SC)

people assume minorities are hired only because of affirmative action and are not qualified (lack the skills/qualifications even if they have them - Kamala Harris)

- called preferential treatment or reverse racism

background of Affirmative Action

to speed up racial integration processes the US instituted affirmative action policies to increase representation of black people

involve making decisions about people based on a certain identified trait (like race)

connection between FP:10 and Special Interests/Organized Interests

James Madison wanted to prevent the spread of factions by having decentralized government with distribution of power, though this has actually made it easier for special interest groups to influence policy making because there are multiple points of access...

Arthur Bentley: Process of Government (1907)

to understand society, you need to understand that it is broken down into different groups that are all competing with each other

- largely unnoticed in the policy space